Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

But I dissent from the suggestion that 1 John has anything to do with John the disciple. 1 John is closely connected with 2 John, as discussed, and 2 John was penned by "the elder." It is most natural to take this figure to be the same as Papias' "John the elder," who is distinct from John the disc...

The second reason is more substantial. My own view for the moment is that 1 John was supposed to be a corporate effort, a shared document drawn up by a committee. 2 John, on the other hand, was from the pen of one of the people responsible for 1 John, probably even the person most responsible for 1...

My only question now is, why are 2 and 3 John thought to have not been authored by the same person who wrote 1 John? I suppose that Papias only knowing 1 John and only 2 and 3 John saying "the elder" could be an indication of it, but what else is there? The heavy similarity of style and subject mat...

My only question now is, why are 2 and 3 John thought to have not been authored by the same person who wrote 1 John? I suppose that Papias only knowing 1 John and only 2 and 3 John saying "the elder" could be an indication of it, but what else is there?

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 08, 2018 7:55 pm

Also, bear in mind that my own view depends upon that second "disciples of the Lord" phrase being an interpolation.

I took a fresh look at your argument and it makes sense to me.

I do not get that feeling at all. John of Zebedee as he appears in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is a Galilean; the "beloved disciple" in John does not seem to appear until the passion sequence in Judea. Also, John of Zebedee is listed in the appendix (in John 21.2) along with all the other named or iden...

Ben also wrote: The "beloved disciple," anonymous in the fourth gospel, was never originally imagined to be named John; that was a later idea, again with the intent of making direct apostolic influence last longer into early century II. Very interesting. I need to look into that more too. Did the id...

But does Papias himself ever equate this "other John" with the John that Polycrates says wore a sacerdotal plate and died in Ephesus (I can't think of anything offhand)? No. Only Polycrates among all of our sources even mentions the sacerdotal plate, and its meaning is not immediately clear. If not...

Ben wrote (in my citation above): 1.Irenaeus never takes pains to distinguish John the apostle from John the disciple. 2.Irenaeus never calls John an elder; to the contrary, the elders are those who followed him and the other apostles. 3.Ireneaus refers to the son of Zebedee using the same basic ter...

Are there really two Johns in Papias? In my best judgment, yes, very probably. Let's look at EH. 3.39.5-6 in this light then. 5. It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of t...